• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Caunce O'Hara Legal Expenses Insurance

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #41
    Originally posted by FiddlersGreen View Post
    And the chances of that are several thousand to one making the "cover" worth £1 on average. In my case it is probably closer to £0. Should I subsidize the stupid who can't tell the difference between themselves and their company and think personal membership is corporate membership?
    Well if you're not going to listen, why ask? If you're confident you will never get a tax investigation of any kind, then obviously you don't need the insurance. Let's hope your confidence is not misplaced. Lots of people however do not have that confidence.

    IPSE covers a lot more than tax investigations, come to that, but clearly that's not relevant either.
    Blog? What blog...?

    Comment


      #42
      Originally posted by FiddlersGreen View Post
      Playing Devils Advocate. What is value for money with insurance?
      In general, insurance can only pay out a fraction of the premiums (loss ratio). If on average customers get much less than 75% back then it is not "value for money" in my books. At best with its very tax inefficient membership, IPSE cannot even achieve this with zero overheads. I suspect it is far, far, far worse than that.

      I think it is possible that the percentage that is paid back is so low that it is virtually worthless joining IPSE for the "insurance".

      I am not saying there are not lots of reasons to join, but I would not for the "insurance".
      Any insurance company is going to take more in premiums than it pays out, or it would be bankrupt. I just meant that if you were to want to buy all the cover that membership provides separately, you'd be hard pushed to beat the IPSE offering in terms of cost. But if you only want tax investigation cover and are not interested any anything else, then the C O'H cover does look a better deal if cost is your primary consideration.

      Comment


        #43
        Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
        Any insurance company is going to take more in premiums than it pays out, or it would be bankrupt. I just meant that if you were to want to buy all the cover that membership provides separately, you'd be hard pushed to beat the IPSE offering in terms of cost. But if you only want tax investigation cover and are not interested any anything else, then the C O'H cover does look a better deal if cost is your primary consideration.
        If the amount that was paid out in their last financial year for the "insurance" side as a percentage of total membership subscriptions was more than 25% then I'll buy you a bottle of wine/champagne up to £40 in value.

        Comment


          #44
          Originally posted by FiddlersGreen View Post
          If the amount that was paid out in their last financial year for the "insurance" side as a percentage of total membership subscriptions was more than 25% then I'll buy you a bottle of wine/champagne up to £40 in value.
          Fair enough - sounds like you're pretty well informed, so I'm sure you can make your own decision.

          Comment


            #45
            Originally posted by malvolio View Post
            Well if you're not going to listen, why ask? If you're confident you will never get a tax investigation of any kind, then obviously you don't need the insurance. Let's hope your confidence is not misplaced. Lots of people however do not have that confidence.

            IPSE covers a lot more than tax investigations, come to that, but clearly that's not relevant either.
            The point is that almost all members* would be better off saving the money and buying the professional advice when the worst happened.

            * I'm beginning to think I have completely overestimated the sense of most members so I may be completely wrong.

            Comment


              #46
              Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
              Fair enough - sounds like you're pretty well informed, so I'm sure you can make your own decision.
              If you have worked out that the insurance is not that good then why promote it?

              Comment


                #47
                Originally posted by FiddlersGreen View Post
                The point is that almost all members* would be better off saving the money and buying the professional advice when the worst happened.

                * I'm beginning to think I have completely overestimated the sense of most members so I may be completely wrong.
                It's an option. Professional advice for an IR35 investigation is likely to cost you a few K, so well within the means of most contractors. I guess you could argue that for the low risk of an IR35 investigation that is the best option in terms of risk vs expenditure. Risks of other investigations are higher (e.g. VAT inspection) but the associated costs are lower.

                But, as you already know, IPSE membership does give you a lot more than just tax investigation cover - guess it depends what you want from it, and whether you want to support IPSE's lobbying activities.

                Comment


                  #48
                  Originally posted by FiddlersGreen View Post
                  If you have worked out that the insurance is not that good then why promote it?
                  I think it is good value for me - I'm happy to hand over my membership fee and know that I've got them on my side if the tulip hits the fan, or even for minor hiccups like jury service cover etc.

                  Comment


                    #49
                    Why do you insure your car above and beyond the legal minimum requirement of 3rd party? Car insurance companies make a profit and payout much less than the money they bring in - it would therefore be better to save the money and payout to replace your own car in the event of a crash. Unless of course you see some value in paying the extra few hundred quid a year and not having to worry about finding x amount in the event that you crash.

                    Comment


                      #50
                      Originally posted by FiddlersGreen View Post
                      The point is that almost all members* would be better off saving the money and buying the professional advice when the worst happened.

                      * I'm beginning to think I have completely overestimated the sense of most members so I may be completely wrong.
                      It's not just about insurance for me. It's about all the other benefits I get too from having one organisation that represents me and what I do.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X